User talk:Nikkimaria/Archive 18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

DYK again[edit]

Are you still managing to single-handedly hold down the fort over there? If so, would you like to keep an eye on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#North Preston.27s Finest ? Someone needs to again try to get DYK to clean up its act, and we know they won't listen to me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. I've been trying, with help from BlueMoonset, but was quite busy IRL for the past couple of weeks - that coupled with some late-loaded queues (since I only look once per day max) meant that articles like this one passed without me checking. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh, you're good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Highway 61 Revisited[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, how are you? I hope all is well. Thanks a lot for your comments for Highway 61 Revisited at FAC. We think we have addressed all of the issues you mentioned. Would you have the time to have another peek? Thank you again, Moisejp (talk) 15:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria, happy new year! I hope you are well. I was wondering whether you might have time to have another peek at Highway 61 Revisited, and whether our changes have satisfied your concerns. Thank you, Moisejp (talk) 07:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copypaste You Noticed[edit]

Dear Nikkimaria, thank you for your comments. I believed that if I change words of article, this does not violate copyright. I didn't know about paraphrasing then. I come to know about it when I submitted for DYK and you told me. I will try to checkout all the articles I contributed and fix as much as possible. It will take time but must be done. Thank you again. If you find my such edits anywhere, help me by pointing it.

--Nizil (talk) 18:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Nizil, if you haven't already, you might take a look at some of our essays and guidelines on the subject, like WP:Close paraphrasing or how to spot and avoid plagiarism. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response[edit]

Nikkimaria, I responded on my talk page. I see why you were concerned; it's much more obvious now that you've blockquoted the rest of the article. I'd also like to have the replacement lead hook back where it had been, so it runs during the daytime here in the US: some suggestions about what to queue in its place... Thanks for finding this. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the quick work! I'll get a new lead hook for Prep 2. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Nikkimaria. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Ah Boys to Men.
Message added 09:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 09:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Colours of Animals DYK[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, thanks for reviewing my article. I've done as you requested - have checked every quote for strict relevance, have slimmed many of them, removed some, and paraphrased several arguments of the reviewers. All the best - Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Willie Eckstein[edit]

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright tag search[edit]

Hi, Peacemaker67 has requested I contact you about finding a PD tag he requires for a GA review of Capture of Tiberias.

The tag required reads

"This non-U.S. work was published 1923 or later, but is in the public domain in the United States because either • it was simultaneously published (within 30 days) in the U.S. and in its source country and is in the public domain in the U.S. as a U.S. work (no copyright registered, or not renewed), or • it was first published outside the United States (and not published in the U.S. within 30 days) and • it was first published before 1978 without complying with U.S. copyright formalities or after 1978 without copyright notice and • it was in the public domain in its home country on the URAA date ( January 1, 1996 for most countries). This work may still be copyrighted in other countries.

For background information, see the explanations on Non-U.S. copyrights. Note: in addition to this statement, there must be a statement on this page explaining why the work is in the public domain in the U.S. (for the first case) or why it was PD on the URAA date in its source country (second case). Additionally, there must be verifiable information about previous publications of the work."

This tag can be seen at File:Churches and fellow POWs.jpg.

Searches of Wikipedia:File copyright tags/All have not uncovered the one Peacemaker wants. Can you help? --Rskp (talk) 01:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Rskp, you're having trouble because our version of the template is quite different from the version at Commons - it's {{PD-URAA}}, but our version does not have the text you quote above - only the Commons version does. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that Nikkimaria. --Rskp (talk) 05:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 03 December 2012[edit]

Disambiguation link notification for December 6[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Anton Szalowski, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Neoclassical (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mars et Avril[edit]

Hi, are you quite certain the whole trivia section should best be deleted in Mars et Avril. When I tagged it as a trivia, I saw that Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(trivia_sections)#What_this_guideline_is_not urges us not to do so, but rather preserve the content, if it's relevant--and I think that a great deal of what was in this section could usefully be incorporated into the production section, with a bit of work (though I confess I have no personal interest in doing so!). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of that, but when I looked most of it already was in the production section. Is there some point specifically that wasn't that you think should be? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To my shame, I don't know. Let me get back to you if I spot something in the edit history. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK followups[edit]

Nikkimaria, there are a couple of DYK nominations where a followup from you would be helpful:

  • Template:Did you know nominations/Nav Nirman: this ends with a further problematic passage (there was a subsequent edit that turned the sentence into something that isn't quite a sentence, though it doesn't seem to infringe now), and a far more alarming statement about infringing material being copied across several articles. What is the status here? If the prose is on a par with the new non-sentence, I wonder about it being ready for DYK on prose grounds.
  • Template:Did you know nominations/Esme Tombleson: have the close paraphrasing issues been fixed by Schwede66?

Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:50, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Esme's fine, I've re-added the tick. With NN, it appears as if the nominator replicated part of the article as a summary into other articles to create incoming links, and part of that material included phrasing from the source. That hasn't been fixed, but is an issue exterior to the DYK nom - it still needs to be dealt with, but it's in other articles not in the hook. As far as the nom goes, though, there continue to be paraphrasing issues (though far less serious than before), as well as problems with prose quality. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Esme's just been promoted, and I've rejected Nav Nirman: the prose issues were a bit much, combined with the remaining close paraphrasing issues. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, and that's another with potential prose problems, though maybe not as bad. Left a response there. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AB Award![edit]

AB Award!
In appreciation of your contributions to Wikipedia, I hereby present you with the AB Award. By expanding and promoting one of these stubs, which I like to think of as seeds, you have improved this wonderful collaborative project. Thank you, and keep up the great work! Another Believer (Talk) 19:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Grimaldi spot check[edit]

Hi NM, are you in the position to be able to carry out a spot check on the above's FAC. I feel confident that there are no issues. I would be most grateful if you could oblige. :-) -- CassiantoTalk 11:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The spot check was much appreciated thank you. I was wrong about there being no issues, but glad there were no serious ones. All of your points have now been addressed, hopefully to your satisfaction. -- CassiantoTalk 11:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 December 2012[edit]

Willard Gibbs FAC[edit]

Hi. Another editor has asked me to please ping you about whether the issues that you raised about the images on the article on Josiah Willard Gibbs have been properly addressed. Please see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Josiah Willard Gibbs/archive1. Thanks. - Eb.hoop (talk) 22:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Amdavad ni Gufa[edit]

Nikkimaria, can I ask you to take a look at this one? The wording is problematic from an English standpoint, but I'm wondering whether there might be close paraphrasing in here as well. Unfortunately, I can't check a couple of the major online sources, but maybe you can; in any case, I know you'll be better at the paraphrase check. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I too can't see a couple of the GBooks links, but from what I can see: a couple of examples of close paraphrasing, as in "It was built on the basis of computer aided designs" vs "gallery has been built on the basis of computer aided designs" and "It was constructed by using simple hand tools by unskilled tribal labourers" vs "structure has been constructed using simple hand tools and that too by unskilled workers", but beyond those no problems from visible sources. I'd say the prose is still the main issue there. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll probably highlight those and reiterate my suggestion that an outside copyeditor be found. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 13[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Language deprivation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Morphology, Plasticity, Facial recognition and Mute

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Infighting in Los Zetas[edit]

The creator has posted that the latest close paraphrasing issues have been addressed; can you please check? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/USCGC Smilax (WLIC-315)[edit]

Nikkimaria, can I ask you to please take a look at this? The discussion in the review (including the green tick) looks a bit alarming in terms of public domain and close paraphrasing, but I'm up to my eyebrows in trying to keep the prep areas filled and don't have time to investigate. I don't plan to promote this one, but it would be nice to know it's okay (or not) before some one else tries. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. It's a relief to know, and now it's on my radar as one to promote. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peace music[edit]

Let me thank you for the Peace music you gave to all readers and to me, by repeating in style:

Precious consistent quality control
Thank you for consistently checking the quality of articles going to the Main page, for taking your time to preview critical ones for those who are afraid, and for your comments in a delete discussion "the principle that while Wikipedia is not a social network, it also isn't a soulless machine", "useful for community-building, which is an essential aspect of collaboration", and for mentioning "ideal" in the context! Ideal!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC) -[reply]

At that point of time, I didn't (dare to) add yet: "repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (25 September 2010 and 4 April 2012)!" - How do you like my hook suggestion? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gerda, replied there. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 December 2012[edit]

Close paraphrasing[edit]

Would you be so kind as to cast your close paraphrasing eye on the article Obelia longissima as nominated for DYK here. I don't like to be accused of close paraphrasing when I try to do everything I can to avoid it while still trying to extract good information from my sources. Thank you. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was very helpful. Thank you. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Leningrad première of Shostakovich's Symphony No. 7, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kuybyshev (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/William Dixson[edit]

Nikkimaria, I did a quick duplication detector check of the above with its first multi-cited reference, and discovered a boatload of identical phrases, including five of 19 words or more. Can you please take a look at this and see just how bad things are, and do whatever cutting is appropriate? It seemed bad enough to me that I used the X rather than the slash. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Leningrad première of Shostakovich's Symphony No. 7[edit]

Orlady (talk) 12:02, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the Peace music with psychological warfare, it's now featured on Portal:Germany, - much better Christmas music than soft shopping background, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant work Nikki! You might find more on Leningrad Radio Orchestra.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 15:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, red-link-filler! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Saint Petersburg Academic Symphony Orchestra? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks both! Nikkimaria (talk) 03:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
GA, well deserved! GA, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good job![edit]

Good job cleaning up Internalization, especially shorting down the study. Thank you! Lova Falk talk 12:22, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas[edit]

Merry Christmas
May your Christmas sparkle with moments of love, laughter and goodwill,

May the year ahead be full of contentment and joy,

May the good times and treasures of the present become the golden memories of tomorrow,

Merry Christmas To U & Ur Family.

Jivesh1205 (Talk) 07:25, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXXI, December 2012[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 08:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons greetings...[edit]

Happy Holidays
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 December 2012[edit]

Thanks![edit]

Hi Nikki; thanks for the review. I believe I sorted out the publisher issue. Let me know if it needs more work. ceranthor 18:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Meeting Place Cannot Be Changed[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria. I am the creator and maintainer of the above article, and I respectfully disagree with an edit you made. I don't see the purpose of deleting an interesting piece of trivia that the majority of the cast earlier appeared together in another popular film. After your edit the paragraph is just a listing of several actors whose names mean nothing to Western audience. I have restored to article to the way I had written it.

Goganess (talk) — comment added 07:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you help me?[edit]

Hi Nikki! Could I please ask you to source-review fluorine? I've done some tedious work to check every ref (contents and formatting), but I'm not sure if anything has been missed. Could you please take a look at the formatting? If it takes time, is delayed, or you totally can't, that's no problem, but please let me know. Thanks!--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest adding citations for paragraph-ending sentences currently lacking them, such as "Fluorosurfactants are a small segment in mass but are significant economically because of very high prices". Special:BookSources/978817141418, Special:BookSources/9780306646108 and Special:BookSources/9780444521763 all return error messages, and Checklinks reports three link problems. You shouldn't mix templates from {{cite}} and {{citation}} families (be sure to check the infobox refs, which are hosted elsewhere). Use a consistent date format (ex FN6 - all ref numbers as of this version). FN25 lacks publisher. You don't need access dates for GBooks links, but can include them if you choose. FN46 is broken. Is FN69 meant to be Cambridge University Press? Edition formatting is currently inconsistent ("2nd ed" vs "3 ed"). FN82 is missing italics. Compare FNs 83 and 94 - look for similar examples. FN88 is broken. Check for doubled periods caused by templates (ex. FN106). When you use website names as publishers, be consistent in whether they're capitalized. This appears to be a student-created website. FN168 is missing italics. FN191 is missing volume/issue and pages. Compare FNs 193 and 195 - check for other examples. What makes FN212 reliable given that Lulu.com is a self-publishing company? Compare FNs 219 and 220. Compare FNs 101 and 223. Compare FNs 73 and 280. FN287 is missing publisher. FN317 misplaces publisher as author - there's a specific author that isn't mentioned. I don't have the subject knowledge to see other reliability or comprehensiveness issues, but hopefully you've dealt with that already. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thank you very much, very fast and productive! Yes, it took me some reasonable time (may have overlooked something, but I'm quite sure about those issues) Starting to fix these now.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fleming and Baird[edit]

I see that, fairly predictably, the nationality of Logie Baird was recently changed from Scottish (British) to Scottish without any discussion on the talk page or any consensus being reached. If you are neutral in this discussion as you claim, then I assume you will revert the edit, lock the page and ask for discussion and consensus. Flagators (talk) 13:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do hope you read my comment at your talk. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations[edit]

The WikiProject Barnstar
I am delighted to present you with this WikiProject Barnstar in recognition of your extensive contributions to the Military history WikiProject, as evidenced by your being nominated for the 2012 "Military historian of the year" award. We're grateful for your efforts, and look forward to seeing more of your excellent work in the coming year! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ian! Nikkimaria (talk) 02:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finding the close paraphrasing[edit]

Nikkimaria, thanks for finding the close paraphrasing in the BAM article that I promoted to prep, and was in queue when you found it. I was wondering whether you might be able to move the René de Segonzac hook from Prep 2 to Queue 3 to refill it to eight: I think placing it right after the Samuel N. Patterson House hook would be best in terms of balance within that set. (They're the ninth and tenth prep sets I've done in a row; I think I'll take a break once I've replaced the Segonzac in P2.) Please let me know ... and be sure to check the Segonzac before you do move it! Although, if I recall correctly, most of the sources are French ones... BlueMoonset (talk) 02:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've moved the hook, just in case it's too late over there — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Crisco - not that late yet, but had stepped away for some yummy hot chocolate. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Temptation, hot chocolate is thy name... and the little bitty marshmallows. I've yet to see those here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had yummy dirty chocolate. (It's the name of an ice cream flavor here, and was dubbed that because making it is apparently quite messy. Doesn't taste messy, though: just really, really good.) BlueMoonset (talk) 03:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Enough[edit]

Stop stalking my edits. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles". Nikkimaria (talk) 14:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear that you are stalking Andy's edits across many articles. I will point out, as clearly and politely as I can, that infoboxes in articles are not "unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy" and you are well aware of that. Your behaviour is becoming a matter of concern now and I'd be grateful if would kindly take a step back and try to regain your perspective, please. You are more than capable of making very fine contributions to Wikipedia, but pursuing a vendetta against another editor is a blot on your copybook. Why not try to avoid articles where Andy is editing? If he is wrong about an infobox in a given article, then someone else will surely come along and correct him. If not, then perhaps you should be examining your reasons for reverting his edits so frequently? --RexxS (talk) 17:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your concern, RexxS, but please read the entire quote: Andy's habit of adding infoboxes indiscriminately, against guidelines and even warring them in where others have objected, absolutely qualifies as "related problems on multiple articles", and in many cases extends to "violations of Wikipedia policy". I have not been removing every infobox Andy adds, nor do I pursue a vendetta against him - I have not sought to have him sanctioned, for example, even though his behaviour could certainly warrant it. I am, however, confident in my rationale for reverting him, and feel that doing so in the cases that I am is more helpful to the community than a "blot on [my] copybook". While I certainly understand if you feel the need to continue to support him, might I suggest you extend some advice to him as well? Some of his comments as of late have been rather intemperate, and more civility blocks on good contributors aren't what the project needs at the moment. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Wallace Hartley[edit]

I was actually working on a slightly different list than I normally do for these edits, Category:Incorrectly_tagged_WikiProject_Biography_articles. *Most* of the entries in that category come from user talk pages, but it appears that that category is also filled with talk pages of pages that are redirected. I should have put a slightly different explanation on it, but I still think the WPBio template doesn't belong there...Naraht (talk) 21:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but why remove the "merged" template? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio[edit]

You wrote on my talkpage: "Please don't do things like this or this again: if you're quoting directly from your source, use quote marks, and do not readd material removed because of close paraphrasing/copyvio concerns."

You removed this: Initially ACC adopted a ‘pay-as-you-go’ funding model which collected “only enough levies during the year to cover the cost of claims for that particular year”. In 1999 a ‘fully funded’ model was adopted which meant ACC began collecting enough money during each levy year to cover the lifetime costs of every claim. Since some people are supported by ACC for “30 years or more”, significant reserves had to be generated to fund future costs.

The greatest number of words that are a direct copy are this phrase: “only enough levies during the year to cover the cost of claims for that particular year” - 16 words. WP:CP states: "Depending on the context and extent of the paraphrasing, limited close paraphrase may be permitted under the doctrine of fair use; close paraphrase of a single sentence is not as much of a concern as an entire section or article." Examples of fair use include commentary, search engines, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and scholarship. It provides for the legal, unlicensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author's work under a four-factor balancing test. One of the four factors is Amount and Sustantiality... On this point WP says "In general, the less that is used in relation to the whole, ex: a few sentences of a text for a book review, the more likely that the sample will be considered fair use." In other words a few sentences out of an entire publication is deemed legitimate. The concept of de minimis also applies. The article goes on to say: "In other words, de minimis sampling was still considered fair and free because, traditionally, "the law does not care about trifles."

I know you have good intentions - but deleting the paragraph on the basis of 16 trifling words - how do you justify this? Offender9000 22:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Simple: exact copying is not the only thing you need to avoid, and the rest of that section was nearly identical in structure and phrasing. Furthermore, WP:Fair use limits that type of usage to quotation, which this was not - you were presenting it as an original wording when it really wasn't. On the same article you also copied or very closely paraphrased other material as well. You need to stop doing that, now, or you're very likely to get blocked, and you've been told at much at your CCI. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where exactly does it say on the fair use page that fair use is limited to "quotation"? It doesn't say it on this page about fair use. I see that under close paraphrasing it says: "Limited close paraphrasing is appropriate within reason, as is quoting (with or without quotation marks), so long as the material is clearly attributed in the text." Offender9000 01:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

But you need to base your editing practices on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, not necessarily on what our articles say - after all, our articles are not reliable sources. Look at Wikipedia:Fair_use#Acceptable_use: "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point...", etc. Compare Wikipedia:Fair_use#Legal_position: "It is legal to reformulate ideas based on written texts, or create images or recordings inspired by others, as long as there is no copying (see plagiarism for how much reformulation is necessary)" (my emphasis). See also Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright ("You can use the facts, but unless they are presented without creativity (such as an alphabetical phone directory), you may need to reorganize as well as restate them to avoid substantial similarity infringement") and WP:PARAPHRASE ("Close paraphrasing without in-text attribution may constitute plagiarism, and when extensive (with or without in-text attribution) may also violate Wikipedia's copyright policy, which forbids Wikipedia contributors from copying material directly from other sources...If a non-free copyrighted source is being used, it is recommended to use original language and direct quotations, to clearly separate source material from original material"). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence: "Limited close paraphrasing is appropriate within reason, as is quoting (with or without quotation marks), so long as the material is clearly attributed in the text" is wikipedia policy. Offender9000 03:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but a) "limited" is an issue (the part in question was several sentences, not a few words), and b) no attribution in the text was provided. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The part you have now deleted is less than one sentence and is not a direct quote. In other words, its very 'limited'. Also attribution was provided at the end of the sentence. Please read the policy you linked to. It clearly says: "Simple facts such as this can have inline citations to reliable sources as an aid to the reader, but normally the text itself is best left as a plain statement without in-text attribution." In other words, for straight forward information, a citation at the end constitutes "attribution in the text" Offender9000 19:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I deleted two sentences that remain almost identical to the cited source, and I've read the policies I've linked, which suggest in-text (not citation) attribution and/or appropriate rephrasing in cases like this one. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have now copied this conversation to the ACC Talk page so anyone else who might want to participate can do so. Please respond there if you intend to continue. Offender9000 19:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have missed my most recent response; would you mind adding it? Also, the conversation is becoming a bit hard to read because of the lack of threading on your part; you might want to take a look at Help:Threading. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removing claimed trivia sections[edit]

Before removing an article section, as you did here to the A cappella article, please check the associated talk page for a discussion on the matter. Deletion wasn't urgent. —ADavidB 03:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did. You posted that its inclusion wasn't appropriate, and no one else had commented. I'm unsure why you would restore the section when you agree it isn't appropriate, and waiting a day before removing is hardly "urgent". Nikkimaria (talk) 04:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I used the talk page for collaboration, not 'shooting first and answering any questions later'. What I posted is that I didn't think it was appropriate "in its current form". You acted about 16 hours after my posting in which I sought comment from others. Article discussion doesn't always happen that fast. I restored the section because its silent removal wasn't conducive to discussion or any subsequent reformatting. —ADavidB 07:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree[edit]

I noticed your edit summary here. You are correct and I acknowledge the wisdom of your admonition. Best regards, --My76Strat (talk) 03:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Film lists[edit]

Lists of credits are common on WP director articles. They are usually not referenced, as the on-screen credits are quite good enough and can easily be verified at multiple sources. To remove a whole section because some of it is unreferenced is unjustifiable.

If you're looking for excessive, poor, or irrelevant examples, there are pages which actually have this problem, like the Prequel article, which not only lists every prequel imaginable, but also includes films which aren't prequels, but were mistakenly called such by less-than-rigorous writers in certain published sources. Your efforts might be put to better use there. - Gothicfilm (talk) 04:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except that "Alan Smithee" is not a real person, but a pseudonym. You wouldn't expect the article on John Doe to list every occurrence of that name, would you? Instead it lists only the more notable (and sourceable) usages, as the Smithee article should - relying on reliable secondary sources to inform our list. Pointing to other pages that have problems does not mean that this page has none. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alan Smithee is an official credit given for specific reasons by the Director's Guild. Every use of it is notable, as it reveals a serious dispute could not be properly worked out on that production. The list allows readers to easily see instances where this occurred. John Doe is not analogous and has nothing to do with it. - Gothicfilm (talk) 04:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, every use of it should be discussed in the articles about the specific works in which it was used, as that's where the "dipute" is relevant. The general Smithee article, on the other hand, should not be bloated with every instance. It's more analogous to Doe than to a specific director because there is no specific period/genre/whatever for which this name is applied and the long list of works does not give any significant insight into "Alan Smithee" as a topic (whereas a director's filmography can inform the reader's knowledge of his/her oeuvre). Nikkimaria (talk) 04:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with specific periods or genres. I don't want to repeat myself, but every use of it is notable, as it reveals a serious dispute could not be properly worked out on that production. A list of this - where the DGA made it official - is what I would expect and want to see on an article such as this. A list of instances of John Doe usage was not officially designated by anyone - it just means the subject's ID is unknown. If you can't see that clear distinction, I'm wasting my time here. To repeat myself one more time, to remove a whole section because some of it is unreferenced, as you did, is unjustifiable. I'm done. - Gothicfilm (talk) 05:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The DGA made it official on non-films? That seems unlikely, so would need to be sourced. Nevertheless, if you prefer, we can remove the list based on it being trivial, undue weight and without demonstrated significance to the topic - as I said before, while disputes on a particular film are relevant to the article on that film, they are not notable within the context of this pseudonym. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice[edit]

Hi there. I just wanted to let you know about a small discussion here in which you are mentioned. Regards Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 07:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much[edit]

Thanks for becoming involved in Festivus. The user who keeps reverting you, me, and the world seems to have grabbed onto the page and wants to shake the life out of it. We had a huge revert war on if Festivus is "secular" or "parody" (it's been labeled as secular for years, both here and in major media). When I tried to talk with him on his talk page he ignored me, erased the comments, and reverted again and again. Please stay with the page, as it is one of the top 100 articles viewed on wikipedia (81), and as such an important page it has had a total lack of administration. Randy Kryn 11:26 31 December '12

December 2012[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Mark Arsten (talk) 17:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting approach. Given that there were three people involved, no one near 3RR, and a discussion ongoing on the talk page, it might have been better to simply protect the article for a while. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not completely endorsing the block, but given that you are an admin, Nikki, I guess that protecting the page wouldn't have worked. Just some thoughts. — ΛΧΣ21 18:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Nikki While this wasn't a 3RR situation, I think it was still pretty clearly edit warring, in that you and he were making a revert every day or two for two weeks. I respect you and Andy both a great deal, and I'll be willing to unblock under the condition that the dispute be resolved on the talk page, instead of resuming the slow moving revert war. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it would've - any admin who edit-wars through protection is on a fast-track to ArbCom. I'm stubborn but not stupid. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, well. That's a good point. — ΛΧΣ21 18:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seems entirely consistent with the craziness that seems to have overwhelmed Wikipedia over the Christmas period. Maybe some people need to be a little less liberal with the brain juice? Anyway, I'm sure you've got better things to do over the next 24 hours than pay any attention to this place. Malleus Fatuorum 18:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, Mark, No! No! Say it ain't so, Mark. Say it ain't so.
This block did not help with the editor retention of Sandy. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've reverted your last edit and restored the article to 12th December, before this bout of edit warring. It happens to be one of Andy Mabbett's edits, before you point that out, but I assure you that's coincidence and no more.
re the infobox issue – this is one of the clearest cases of edit warring I've seen and the blocks of both of you are thoroughly deserved and warranted as preventative. I don't know your edit history, but Andy Mabbett certainly knows better. Get some consensus or project guidelines sorted out before this sort of simplistic "Any infoboxes are wrong and must be removed" campaign, let alone by edit-warring to do so. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Andy, the infobox was added on 12 December by Andy Mabbett, there are project guidelines in place that recommend against infoboxes in cases like this one, and no one involved is on a simplistic "any infoboxes are wrong and must be removed" campaign. Rather than continue the edit war, please take the time to understand the background here. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's my mistake for not looking far enough back in the edit history. I'm going to leave this article alone now to prevent further chaos, but if anyone else wants to revert it further, I would leave them to it. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mark, I'm not sure if this will carry any weight, but I would like to ask (as a personal favour, if you wish) if you would unblock both Nikki and Andy. I am trying hard on the talk page Talk:Hans-Joachim Hessler to find some common ground and I don't think the edit-war is likely to continue. You have my assurance that I limit myself to a strict 1RR in every case, so there is no danger of me exacerbating the situation further, and both Nikki and Andy will be certain of the consequences of editing the article further before consensus on the talk page. Thanks in advance for any consideration you are able to make of my request. Cheers, --RexxS (talk) 18:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RexxS, in response to your recent post at article talk: is there a way to increase the size of the image within the infobox? I'd be willing to leave the infobox in if there was a way to make the image bigger, limit alma mater to Graz (others are unsourced anyway), leave out blank parameters, and delink German. Would that be an acceptable compromise, pending a larger RfC or opposition from other voices? Either way, can you specify (for my own interest, not in relation to this article at the moment) what other ways of adding metadata are available? I know of persondata already, but that's fairly limited. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Nikki, I've made those changes to the infobox on the talk page. See if it meets your objections and perhaps we can agree to make use of it (or a modified version - I don't know if 350px is best, for example). Let's edit the talk page and update the article when we've finished. I agree that persondata is limited, and it's not easy to add metadata from scratch because it relies on making use of precisely named classes that are best wrapped in a template - as far as I know Template:UF-hcard-person shows the data provided by {{Infobox person}}, but you could ask Andy, as he's more expert in this than I am. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I looked in to the 'pedia yesterday and the first thing I encountered was madness. I looked in today and the first thing I encountered was more madness. I'm leaving. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andy has already requested an unblock on the grounds that this wasn't a "preventative" block, as he hadn't edited it for some days. Given the slow rate of changes though, and their remarkably extended duration, I don't see that as convincing reason.
As these blocks are both short (it's New Year's Eve - there are better things to be doing), deserved, and justified as preventative, I'd support keeping them. However talk page access should certainly remain and I'd be willing to cross-post at least a comment each to the article talk page, in support of some real discussion. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've unblocked in the interests of facilitating discussion on the article's talk page. Please don't resume reverting though. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. As I'd obviously prefer not to make any edits to the article at the moment, would someone mind making the non-infobox-related changes that Andy Dingley undid? I don't think any of them should be controversial. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, he's reverted himself. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where was this user warned about edit warring before a block was given out? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:08, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anything I could add to this thread would be hypocritical ... if I were complaining, one of the reasons would be that Mark was the wrong person to make this block. But I have a vested interest here, too ... Nikki is one of the most amazingly productive editors at Milhist, at FAC, and many other places I hang out ... so I can't hope to offer an objective analysis. All I can say is: Nikki, if you're ever in a situation where someone cites your "block log", please let me know. - Dank (push to talk) 19:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Belated ditto Dan's comments... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Axel Törneman[edit]

Nikkimaria, I was wondering if you'd be able to check this one over. Admittedly, the problem I initially found was that a stretch of text was from the Google Translate results of a Swedish article in English, but I'd like you to see if there are any other issues now that the text of that particular passage has been modified. Thanks.

I may have another one for you soon; it was another with problematic passages, but I wanted to see what the author does to correct matters before calling on you.

Hope you have (or are already having) a very happy new year. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey BlueMoonset, happy new year! I can't seem to access FN9 so can't speak to the quality of paraphrasing from that source, but other than that it seems fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Hope it's been a great one for you so far. And thank you for checking Axel; it made me a bit nervous under the circumstances, but I'm happy enough to give it an AGF if source 9 is the only one you can't get to. I now have two noms I may be sending your way for an opinion, but I'm waiting on events, and hoping it won't be necessary. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fortress of Mimoyecques FA nomination[edit]

Thank you for your help with the featured article nomination of Blockhaus d'Éperlecques. I thought you might like to know that I've nominated a related article, Fortress of Mimoyecques, for consideration as a featured article. If you have any comments on the nomination, please leave them on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fortress of Mimoyecques/archive1. Prioryman (talk) 09:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

William Dixson[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria,
For what it's worth, I've made some edits to the William Dixson article that I believe address the concerns you and BlueMoonset raised in the DYK nomination. Here's the diff in question. I hope this brings it up to scratch. Thanks, Whiteghost.ink (talk) 01:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WER[edit]

Thanks for removing User:Townsend. I was just on my way to do it myself after I read what a HUGE sock I had listed. ```Buster Seven Talk 05:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 December 2012[edit]

Template:Did you know nominations/Thổ Chu Island[edit]

Nikkimaria, this isn't quite in the usual vein, but I was hoping for another set of eyes. I've just replaced the paraphrase in the History section with a quote from the source (actually reproducing material quoted in that source) because the paraphrase was a little too close for comfort. The thing is, this is the basis of the hook, and I'm wondering if the hook may also be too close for comfort (it wasn't as close as the article text, but...). If you think it is, might you be able to propose a new ALT that covers the same facts but is less close to the quote? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Erika Nordby, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Anoxia and Heartbeat (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Rimac Concept One[edit]

Nikkimaria, I just noticed that this article, which you had previously dinged for close paraphrasing, had been rewritten a while ago, and it has just been approved by another reviewer. Since it's a likely candidate for a lead hook again (which is where it had been before you removed it), can you please take a look to see whether your concerns have been addressed? I certainly wouldn't want to promote it without knowing that you're satisfied. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of the sources I can see, it looks fine now. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Thanks. Glad to hear it. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year![edit]

Best wishes for the New Year!
Wishing you and yours a joyous, healthful, and productive 2013!

Please accept a belated thank you for the well wishes upon my retirement as FAC delegate this year, and apologies for the false alarm of my first—and hopefully last—retirement; the well wishes extended me were most kind, but I decided to return, re-committed, when another blocked sock was revealed as one of the factors aggravating the FA pages this year.

Maintaining standards in featured content requires vigilance, dedication and knowledge of people like you, who are needed; thanks for all you do at FAC, FAR, and DYK! Somehow, somehow we never ever seem to do nothin' completely nice and easy, but here's hoping that 2013 will see a peaceful road ahead and a return to the quality and comaraderie that defines the FA process, with the help of many dedicated Wikipedians!

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Dami Mission[edit]

Nikkimaria, could you please check this one for close paraphrasing? I had to pull it from a prep set minutes after I'd promoted it—most embarrassing—when I realized a key fact was wrong, and then checking the sources I thought I saw a familiar phrase... which I had. The creator has made a bunch of edits and said it's fixed, but under the circumstances I'd feel better if you could check it before it gets a clean bill of health. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I very much appreciate your thoroughness: I was afraid there'd be more to find. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Erika Nordby[edit]

Hello! Your submission of Erika Nordby at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Dl2000 (talk) 01:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Messines 1917[edit]

I've incorporated most of the suggestions made about the Messines 1917 article, are you happy to support A-class status or so you think more work is necessary? Thanks. Keith-264 (talk) 18:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Keith, congrats on the promotion! Sorry, didn't get there in time. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Black Action Movement[edit]

This article has been fixed, re-reviewed, and approved since you pulled it from a set for close paraphrasing. Did you want to take another look at it to make sure your concerns were all addressed? BlueMoonset (talk) 19:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...I think a third party needs to look at FN1. There's some continued but fairly minor close paraphrasing in the first part of the article, and in the section that was reworked, some of the material isn't supported by that source despite being cited to it. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you say so there? Orlady's the person I'd usually go to for something like this, but she isn't a third party, and you're DYK's best guide when it comes to close paraphrasing and source checking. I'm not up to doing it myself, and I can't just negate the approval without having done so. Or can you find another third party? BlueMoonset (talk) 04:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've left a comment there; I don't have time at the moment to rewrite it properly, though. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I know what you mean about not having time: I was just looking at Template:Did you know nominations/Santa Rosa de la Eminencia castle for prose issues, and put in the ? icon. After I was done posting it I ran the one major English source against Duplication detector, and what I got back looked dicey, but I couldn't be sure that most of the matches weren't things that have limited ways of being described. I do think there are likely some problems at least, so if you do get the chance, I'd appreciate you checking it out. (And if you can handle the Spanish sources, so much the better.) Apologies for dumping more in your lap. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No Spanish, but I'll take a look at the English. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And although the second History paragraph is a touch close, I think the prose is the bigger issue here, and wouldn't hold this up on paraphrasing alone. The source itself has as many problems as the article, might be better to find a Spanish speaker to look at sourcing and translation (I suspect it's from a Spanish original). Nikkimaria (talk) 02:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good to have confirmation on the prose; you probably noticed a few of my comments, though I was only mentioning what jumped out and mugged me. Do you know someone who would have Spanish that might be amenable to doing a translation and sourcing check? I'm not Spanish-enabled either. :-) Thanks also for the Balinese cleanup... BlueMoonset (talk) 05:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is where I usually look for foreign-language spotcheckers, though it was set up for FAC. Of those listed you might ask Sandy, although I'm not sure whether she'd be willing - she's been pretty fed up with DYK lately. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking about asking Simon, whose name I've seen in a couple of DYKs recently, though instead we seem to have hit a different level altogether. Another castle DYK by the same author, Template:Did you know nominations/Santa María de La Cabeza castle, which was both DYK approved and given GA status overnight, led me to start my first GAR: Talk:Santa María de La Cabeza castle/GA2. Should I ask him to get involved now, or wait for things to settle down first? BlueMoonset (talk) 20:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see you two are discussing at your talk...I just left some comments at a PR by the same user, which I hadn't realized until now. It looks like he's a WikiCup participant, which might be influencing his actions in terms of speed and quantity over quality. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Hi Nikki, this FAC has consensus to promote at this stage but could I trouble you for one of your patented source reviews before I close it? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Belated tks, Nikki, and sorry about the ESP... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Campbell's dwarf hamster[edit]

Hello! If you have time and it's not too much trouble, could you provide a few suggestions on the peer review page? I would really appreciate your help, as I am thinking about nominating the article for a GA review, but I want to be sure it is ready. Thank you Puffin Let's talk! 11:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Canang sari[edit]

Nikkimaria, I'm trying to build some prep sets (we have only one ready) and find someone to promote the prep set we have because we have no queues ready (40 minutes until we're supposed to promote one), so I don't have time to clean up after this one. I've put the X on it, because the copying is significant (and from a non-reliable source to boot), but something needs to be done and I'm not sure what. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for this one. Do you think you could recheck Template:Did you know nominations/Dami Mission, which is said to have been cleaned up? The author is new and probably needs pointing at all remaining paraphrasing issues, as I'm not sure Chienlit would have done so even if the prose has been fixed. I appreciate it. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet[edit]

Hello. I did just pick a random admin off of the WP:admin talk page for help :) . I was going to create a nomination for 2 accounts I suspect of being sockpuppets of two already banned accounts jadesnake and User:JonnyBonesJones. However, it is beyond my techinical knowhow to properly create the nomination. If I were to present the evidence the evidence of suspicious behavior and pattterns to you, would you be willing to create the nomination for me? PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Portland, I don't do much work with SPI so you're probably better off asking one of the clerks. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review request -- French and Indian War-era fort[edit]

Nikkimaria, I saw your name listed on the PR volunteers list, and I thought based on your interests you might be able to help review my article, Fort Dobbs (North Carolina) (review here). The article passed ACR over at WP:MIL and passed GAN yesterday; I'm now pressing on to try to do FAC. The subject-matter is very narrow, and relatively minor, so sources are challenging and few and far between. I would appreciate any help you can give me! Cdtew (talk) 12:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nikki, thank you for your comments on my peer review. I believe I have commented on or addressed all of your comments, and would be happy for you to rewiew what I've added/changed. I also have a few questions or comments on that page, which you'll find in italics below your comments. Thanks again! Cdtew (talk) 17:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've also addressed all of your comments on the FA Review, if you'd like to revisit. Thanks! Cdtew (talk) 18:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And one last thing to bother you about -- If finally found an image that I think has a legitimate PD explanation for the Fort Dobbs article. I was hoping you'd re-visit your image check for that single image, and give it either your imprimatur, or tell me to get rid of it. The image is [1]. Thanks! Cdtew (talk) 05:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 07 January 2013[edit]

FA Review of Jainism[edit]

Hello. Thanks for your review on Jainism. I have addressed the points you raised. If possible please advise me on hot to further improve the article to gain your support for FA. Rahuljain2307 (talk) 15:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Allan Ronald[edit]

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Out-of-process FAC[edit]

Nikki, would you mind exercising your admin tools and deleting this page for me? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • (talk page stalker) Done. Ian, this is why you need a mop. I'll nom you (wink) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tks for taking care of that mate but, arrgh, no mop pls on principle -- I've already politely turned down 4 or 5 nom offers. If there was a discrete 'page deletor' tool available (there's a 'page mover' one isn't there?) then I'd take it but that's it... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd point to "no big deal", but the wild wastelands that are RFA kinda prove that essay wrong. Alrighty. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiWomen's Collaborative: Come join us (and check out our new website)![edit]

WikiWomen - We need you!
Hi Nikkimaria! The WikiWomen's Collaborative is a group of women from around the world who edit Wikipedia, contribute to its sister projects, and support the mission of free knowledge. We recently updated our website, created new volunteer positions, and more!

Get involved by:

  • Visiting our website for resources, events, and more
  • Meet other women and share your story in our profile space
  • Participate at and "like" our Facebook group
  • Join the conversation on our Twitter feed
  • Reading and writing for our blog channel
  • Volunteer to write for our blog, recruit blog writers, translate content, and co-run our Facebook and receive perks for volunteering
  • Already participating? Take our survey and share your experience!

Thanks for editing Wikipedia, and we look forward to you being a part of the Collaborative! -- EdwardsBot (talk) 00:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FAC - John Le Mesurier[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, I wonder if I could please request a reference check on an article currently at FAC: John Le Mesurier. I'm reasonably confident of the refs, but there is always a possibility I have made any number of errors! Many thanks if you have the time! – SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Nikki - it's much appreciated and we've now covered all the relevant points you've raised. On the last point you made (comparing fn169 and 170), a subsequent tweak further up the page removed a citation so they all moved up one, which is why my colleague couldn't see 170. I've now addressed the point and 168 and 169 are both consistent and correct. Thanks again - SchroCat (talk) 05:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Skye Fall[edit]

With the exception of FN 78, where I need to pick up the "Election Supplement" page number, I believe all of the issues you raised at the Skye FAC have been addressed or answered. If you have time to reply and/or check them over again I'd appreciate it. Ben MacDui 12:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Campbell's dwarf hamster PR[edit]

I have done everything that you ask on the peer review, are you happy that the issues raised have been suitably addressed? Do you think the article is now ready to be nominated for good article status? Puffin Let's talk! 19:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Puffin, you'd probably stand a good chance at GA now. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting one image review[edit]

Hi! Will it be possible for you to kindly review this image in National Film Award for Best Actress which is currently in FLC? I guess this image does not have appropriate US licensing. In that case, this image would be removed from the list. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • (talk page stalker) No, it isn't free in the US. I've raised the issue at an FPo nomination before, now going to nominate the image for deletion. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October to December 2012 Milhist Peer, A-class and FAC reviews[edit]

 The WikiChevrons 
By order of the Military History WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured Article Candidate reviews for the period Oct-Dec 2012, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Black Action Movement[edit]

Nikkimaria, it looks like both Orlady and Kiefer.Wolfowitz have taken a whack at this one, Orlady in the First protest section and Kiefer in the Third protest. Can you please take another look and see whether the issues you raised have been addressed? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the article is ready for the main page. I still see too much close paraphrasing in the first section, using the AA Chronicle source, which need not be a reliable source. The AA Chronicle seems to be a democracy-movement paper, and the article does not appear to have the NPOV prose of traditional journalism. (I corrected some errors in the third section.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the new review. At this point, I think it's up to Kevin to address the issues you've raised. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tripura image review[edit]

As suggested by you and Skinsmoke, I withdrew the FAC. However, I acted upon your image review, and replied there in the FAC page. I will be highly obliged if you kindly have a look at that (and the changes made in the image pages), and provide your opinion. Thanks a lot, --Dwaipayan (talk) 20:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Dwaipayanc, that's mostly good (unless of course you end up adding or changing more images). The only thing I'm unsure on is {{PD-ineligible}} - that tag says the image is ineligible for any copyright, but you already had an Indian copyright tag on it. Is it ineligible or not? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure. This PD-ineligible has been used in some country flag images, while other country flag images have used other copyright tags. Will try to solve this mystery!--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A query on U of Utah course's banner[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, I went ahead and added the course banner to the Course page below the syllabus, but there is a red link now (saying "the course page does not exist"). Does this mean it does not exist at this moment or is there another problem? Thanks. BerikG (talk) 21:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Berik, the link was pointing to the wrong place - I've fixed it now. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks![edit]

Thanks for your help with the DYK. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, was running low on QPQs anyways. Nice hook. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll be looking for one of your items when I bring User:Sven Manguard/Mad Riders live in a few days (when it's actually written, of course). Sven Manguard Wha? 04:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Frances Vane, Viscountess Vane[edit]

Nikkimaria, I just replaced the two prep hook removals you did this evening, and while looking for hooks to replace the pictured one of Catherine Courtney, I was strongly considering this pictured one of Lady Fanny ... until I realized that the article used the same source as the Courtney one did (Oxford) for the bulk of the article, and the article was by the same creator. So I selected another lead hook instead, and would like you to check this one, because I think it's a great portrait and could be an excellent lead hook, but not if the same close paraphrasing issues end up being found. Since you do have access to this (paywall) source, can you please check this article? There are two other approved ones that are also heavily dependent on said source: Template:Did you know nominations/Marian Cripps, Baroness Parmoor and Template:Did you know nominations/Kathleen Simon, Viscountess Simon. While the latter does use Oxford, it is equally dependent on The Times; most of its paragraphs just cite both of those sources at the end. Thanks for checking on these. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fanny and Simon are definitely problematic, flagged as such. Parmoor has some close paraphrasing, but probably isn't close enough to deny DYK, so I've left it. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking all three. I'm definitely glad I asked, and picked one other than Fanny.
(Adding later, which gives me a chance to add a belated sig): I just noticed that another by the same author, Template:Did you know nominations/William Vane, 2nd Viscount Vane (Fanny's husband), has just passed with AGF on the offline sources. Sorry to have to ask, but I think a check is important under the circumstances. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

re:UDAC DYK[edit]

I noticed you pulled the UDAC hook from the queue after copyediting made it shorter. I've brought it back above the threshold. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 08:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First Posting[edit]

What was your first Wiki posting and how did you get started as a Wiki contributor? New to all of this as a student but it seems like you know what you're doing!

Laurenleaf (talk) 18:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)laurenleaf[reply]

Wikipedia Ambassadors update[edit]

Hi! You're getting this message because you are or have been a Wikipedia Ambassador. A new term is beginning for the United States and Canada Education Programs, and I wanted to give you an update on some important new information if you're interested in continuing your work this term as a Wikipedia Ambassador.

You may have heard a reference to a transition the education program is going through. This is the last term that the Wikimedia Foundation will directly run the U.S. and Canada programs; beginning in June, a proposed thematic organization is likely to take over organizing the program. You can read more about the proposal here.

Another major change in the program will take effect immediately. Beginning this term, a new MediaWiki education extension will replace all course pages and Ambassador lists. (See Wikipedia:Course pages and Help:Education Program extension for more details.) Included in the extension are online volunteer and campus volunteer user rights, which let you create and edit course pages and sign up as an ambassador for a particular course.

If you would like to continue serving as a Wikipedia Ambassador — even if you do not support a class this term — you must create an ambassador profile. If you're no longer interested in being a Wikipedia Ambassador, you don't need to do anything.

Please do these steps as soon as possible

First, you need the relevant user rights for Online and/or Campus Ambassadors. (If you are an admin, you can grant the rights yourself, for you as well as other ambassadors.) Just post your rights request here, and we'll get you set up as quickly as possible.

Once you've got the ambassador rights, please set up at a Campus and/or Online Ambassador profile. You can do so at:

Going forward, the lists of Ambassadors at Special:CampusAmbassadors and Special:OnlineAmbassadors will be the official roster of who is an active Ambassador. If you would like to be an Ambassador but not ready to serve this term, you can un-check the option in your profile to publicly list it (which will remove your profile from the list).

After that, you can sign on to support courses. The list of courses will be at Special:Courses. (By default, this lists "Current" courses, but you can change the Status filter to "Planned" to see courses for this term that haven't reached their listed start date yet.)

As this is the first term we have used the extension, we know there will be some bugs, and we know the feature set is not as rich as it could be. (A big wave of improvements is already in the pipeline. And if you know MediaWiki and could help with code review, we'd love to have your help!) Please reach out to me (Sage Ross) with any complaints, bug reports, and feature suggestions. The basic features of the extension are documented at Wikipedia:Course pages, and you can see a tutorial for setting up and using them here.

Communication and keeping up to date

In the past, the Education Program has had a pretty fragmented set of communication channels. We're trying to fix that. These are the recommended places to discuss and stay up-to-date on the education program:

  1. The education noticeboard has become the main on-wiki location for discussion of the Education Program. You can post there about broad education program issues as well as issues with individual courses.
  2. The Ambassadors Announce email list is a very low-traffic announcements list of important information all Ambassadors need to be aware of. We encourage all Ambassadors (and other interested Wikipedians) to subscribe to the list; follow the instructions on the link to add your email address.
  3. If you use IRC regularly, or need to try to reach someone immediately, the #wikipedia-en-ambassadors connect IRC channel is the place to find me and fellow Ambassadors.
Ambassador training and resources

We now have an online training for Ambassadors, which is intended to be both an orientation about the Wikipedia Ambassador role for newcomers and the manual for how to do the role. (There are parallel trainings for students and for educators as well.)

Please go through the training if you feel like you need a refresher on how a typical class is supposed to go and where the Ambassadors fit in, or if you want to review and help improve it. If there's something you'd like to see added, or other suggestions you have for it, feel free to edit the training and/or leave feedback. A primer on setting up and using course pages is included in the educators' training.

The Resources page of the training is the main place for Ambassador-related resources. If there's something you think is important as a resource that's not on there, please add it.

Finally, whether or not you work with any classes this term, I encourage you to post entries to the Trophy Case whenever you see excellent work from students or if you have great examples from past semesters. And, as always, let students (and other editors!) know when they do things well; a little WikiLove goes a long way!

--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Civility[edit]

I've responded to your post there, and have been a little pedantic and linked policy page in my response, as I don't know who will be commenting and wish to be clear. Please do not take my linking and careful explanations as condescending or rude; I mean only to be clear. KillerChihuahua 23:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I too was being a bit careful about phrasing. Replied there. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, we're on the same page then. One never knows who might join a discussion in progress, and it is generally better to try to be clear and careful at the outset than try to clarify after misunderstandings occur. KillerChihuahua 23:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Anton Vickerman, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Civil law and Liability (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Weldon Chan[edit]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 January 2013[edit]

Thanks![edit]

Thanks for chiming in on the PR request for Fort Yellowstone. Mike Cline just got the article to GA and as I've done some work on the article as well, it needs excellent neutral feedback such as yours.--MONGO 19:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Close paraphrasing issues[edit]

Hi! I would like to thank you for your comments on my DYK submissions. While I was a bit disappointed that I didn't succeed in avoiding the issue of close paraphrasing before nominating the articles, I must admit that your comments forced me to search for more sources and more information, which ultimately led to better articles. I should also note that Accedie's help was essential. Could you please take another look at articles about Lady Simon, Lady Courtney, Lady Vane and Lord Vane, and tell me what you think? Surtsicna (talk) 12:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Self Introduction[edit]

Hi, Nikkimaria. Thanks so much for volunteering to provide us with help. My name is Yue Chuen,Tai but you can call me Travis. I am from Malaysia and I am currently a senior, business economics. This is my second year here at APU. I am excited to work on this project and knowing that there are such helpful wikipedians out there like yourself really makes me feel a lot better! I am looking forward to finishing this project with your help and guidance!

Travis Tai (talk) 23:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OCLC[edit]

Hi Nikki, I was going through your comments on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Canis Minor/archive1 and was handling one source with an invalid ISBN. I could only find a valid OCLC number for the book, everywhere I looked gave the same (invalid) ISBN. Can we just use the OCLC number, or do we have to find the right ISBN? Thanks very much for your comments. Keilana|Parlez ici 18:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Keilana, that's very odd - does the book itself have the wrong ISBN? If you can't find it I suppose the OCLC would suffice. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's super weird. WorldCat only gives the OCLC, Google Books shows that it exists but gives an error when you click on it, and every other index in the web gives the bad ISBN. I'll keep looking, thanks for your opinion. Good to know the OCLC will do in a pinch! :) Keilana|Parlez ici 21:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Hair-brushing syndrome for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hair-brushing syndrome is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hair-brushing syndrome until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Scray (talk) 13:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oblivion[edit]

Hey, I noticed your comments on the latest Oblivion FAC discussion (which is now nearly a year-old). I'm trying to get the article ready for another FAC, and I think I've addressed most of the unresolved issues in the previous discussion. If you have time, can you do some source spot checks on the article? It seems that source issues were the main reason why the FAC didn't pass last time.--Futuretrillionaire (talk) 16:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for help[edit]

Template:Did you know nominations/Political development in modern Gibraltar, I have a DYK nomination, an editor has commented that some of the references you formatted for me don't work. I can't see what is wrong, would you be able to help? Regards, Wee Curry Monster talk 20:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Think I've fixed it - one missing parameter, two inconsistencies in the way refs were named. Part of the problem with seeing the issue arises from the mix of sfn and hand-coded short citations, so you may want to "consistentify" that at some point. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Got some articles in the pipeline, so would appreciate a few pointers. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Organ Club - AfD discussion[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Organ Club.  —Waldhorn (talk) 06:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 22[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hair-grooming syncope, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Extension and Syncope (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Harry Yates (pilot)[edit]

KTC (talk) 08:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXXII, January 2013[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Anlu (Cameroon)[edit]

Nikkimaria, there's a blockquote with 244 words in it, describing the "anlu". It properly credits the source involved, but I'm wondering whether this exceeds the bounds of fair use, or remains proper. It is a quote from a book; in this case the book by Paul Nchoji Nkwi contains these words by Francis Nkwain, so Nkwi has already used the identical quote (or perhaps a longer version of it?) by Nkwain that this article is using. Thoughts? I didn't want to promote it if it would prove to be an issue. Many thanks for your sage advice. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tricky to be certain without knowing how long the original Nkwain source is (which I can't find online), but since that entire quote has already been reproduced in at least two sources (the one cited and another mentioned therein), and since it's claimed to be an iconic/significant description, I'd say it's probably okay as fair use. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I very much appreciate your view on it, and won't hesitate to promote it next time. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As first editor of the Anlu (Cameroon) page, figured I'd add thank yous to both Nikkimaria (for the content improvements to that page) and to BlueMoonset (for DYK efforts I can hardly imagine). Thanks both, you officially rock. AbstractIllusions (talk) 03:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors."[edit]

The wiki on, for example, RE is some of the best out there (with 8,128 articles, I'm not quite sure how to count editors or how to measure "a substantial history of stability", but it probably can't get be any/much better than that), so start reverting yourself, and then be more cautious in the future. --Niemti (talk) 19:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Any site that misleads the reader by use of...unverifiable research", and no demonstrated stability...and even if there were, definitely not an RS so citing is not appropriate. I'm being quite generous about citation/linking quality in that set of articles already. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mass removal of Wikia links[edit]

Hi. I saw you removed a lot of links to Wikia sites. Wikia sites often expand on a topic in a way that Wikipedia is not able to accommodate given its scope. As a great resource of information, it's often helpful to readers to link to Wikia content from an article on Wikipedia so that they may explore the topic further and with a level of detail that they may require. Has there been a recent consensus to remove so many Wikia links? I do not think you should be removing so many without prior discussion. With this change you removed a link to the Ace Combat Wikia wiki, but the talk page shows two users have expressed their support for having the external link. You did not give any reason for removing the link and used an edit summary as simply "cleanup". Without any strong reasons for removing the links, I am against their removal, and I think they should be added back to the articles you removed them from. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Odie. I hadn't noticed that particular discussion, so in that case feel free to re-add the link per consensus there. However, as a general rule it's best to avoid these links per WP:ELNO, unless there's specific consensus for their inclusion. And they definitely should not be used as sources, as they are in far too many cases. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For cases like this one, I think the link to the wiki should be included. The Wikia article can offer readers detail that is outside the scope of Wikipedia. I don't see it as a blatant violation of WP:ELNO, and the Resident Evil Wikia appears well established with over 8,000 articles. The same reasoning stands for the other Resident Evil Wikia links you removed. That article also passed GA review with the external link, so at least two other editors (the nominator and the reviewer) thought the link was fine to include. Another example is the Call of Duty articles, like this one. The CoD Wikia wiki has over 5,000 articles and discusses plot and gameplay elements with illustrations that are outside the scope of Wikipedia. Although not as large, the Buffy Wikia has over 4,000 articles ([2]), with detailed plot summaries for the show's episodes. In all of these cases I would support having a link to the relevant Wikia site/article. Please consider each Wikia site before just removing the links, particularly for links which are to a Wikia devoted to the Wikipedia article's topic (like Ace Combat) or Wikia wikis which are well established and have very detailed articles for the topic (like the Resident Evil character articles as the Resident Evil Wikia wiki). I feel you are using far too broad of strokes in your removals. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. I've already reverted a few removals, and will check for others where I might have been hasty. However, number of articles in a wiki is not the primary determining factor in whether we should include a link to it - there's also issues with the reliability/sourcing of the wiki, whether it's promotional/neutral/stable, how many other links are already in the article, etc. Many sites have a scope different from ours, but we can't link to everything about a topic. (And in the the case of CoD, I'd be concerned about possibly linking to copyvio, if they're using screenshots or other illustrations). Nikkimaria (talk) 23:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Erika Nordby[edit]

Hello! Your submission of Erika Nordby at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Prioryman (talk) 23:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 January 2013[edit]

Template:Did you know nominations/Catherine Courtney, Baroness Courtney of Penwith[edit]

Nikkimaria, I was wondering whether the issues you had with this article have been addressed following the most recent round of edits. Can you please stop by and leave a comment? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Nikkimaria. You have new messages at Talk:Avatar: The Last Airbender.
Message added 19:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Odie5533 (talk) 19:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of sourced info at Chex Quest[edit]

I'm not going to edit war with you over this. I'm a believer in WP:BRD, but if you're going to add another R to it then I'll stop right there. Please review your latest reversion, though. Do you see the part containing the wikicode <ref name=plante24sep10/>? That is a tag making reference to a named reference higher up in the article. Specifically it's a citation taken from Chris Plante's 1UP.com article that was reprinted by UGO Networks. If you visit WP:VG/RS you'll notice that both 1UP and UGO are listed as reliable sources. So when I said that you had removed reliably referenced material, I was in fact correct. Whether all of the external links are appropriate or not is certainly open for discussion, but I think the minimum expectation when we're talking about the removal of material with associated RS citations is that an edit summary longer than "rm" be used to explain the edit. -Thibbs (talk) 01:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar with reference code, thanks. Did you look at the content of the source being cited, and the placement of the footnote? Here's the sentence it was in: "Chex Quest fans are also often fans of Chex cereal and, as with the original games,[16] several fan creations spoof the blatant commercial aspects of the game with examples of over-the-top product placement as well as with counterexamples of inferior cereals." The source cited (FN16 here) says that the original games spoofed commercial aspects. However, that clause ("as with the original games") is not the actual topic of this sentence - the fan games are, and the cited source says nothing about them other than implying that they exist. The other part removed had no citations at all. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So assuming good faith I guess you must have been worried that such a long explanation would be too much for the edit summary. Perhaps you should have simply said "see talk" as a summary and then explained your edit in talk, though, because "rm" simply means "remove" and doesn't actually explain that you found the cited material not to be covered by the reference listed. The edit summary for your BRDR edit was equally opaque considering that the material was clearly sourced using an RS even if this source failed verification. Which provides a good segue for me to recommend the {{failed verification}} template for such cases in the future. No obligation on your part, of course, but it's a less confusing alternative to mutely removing material that appears to be properly reffed, so you may find it useful.
As far as the other content that you rm-ed without explanation, I also think that the removal of the Charles Jacobi link and possibly the link to www.chexquest.org was a mistake. If it's not too much trouble, could you explain this decision in more detail? If you'd like, you could start a new section in talk at "Chex Quest" and we could discuss the external links there in the interest of transparency. Oh and thanks for your explanations so far, by the way. -Thibbs (talk) 02:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I was more confused by your assertion that the material was cited to an RS, when it most clearly was not. Your post here clarified that you were misled by the presence of a footnote that did not support, and was not placed to support, any of the material actually under contention; {{failed verification}} would not have been appropriate in this context, as that material was not cited to any source. Until you posted here I would have considered my second edit summary to be self-explanatory, but I'll assume good faith that you didn't check the referencing carefully before claiming you were correct. As to the external links, you might wish to review WP:ELNO. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Was the claim cited? Yes it was. Was it properly cited? No. Was the citation a RS? Yes. So was the claim cited to an RS? Yes it was. It just failed verification. You'll have to forgive a bit of incredulity on my part that within the 1 minute it took you to make your initial bold edit (60 seconds after your edit to Streets of SimCity) you were able to read the 2 paragraphs of the Chex Quest article that you deleted, read through the full RS article that was in fact cited for verification purposes, and then check through the 4 external links with sufficient care to determine that they were unusable. My 60-second analysis of your edit did indeed mislead me as to the verification-failing nature of the attributed source and your edit summary certainly didn't help me guess at the full complexity of your 60-second analysis.
Speaking of external links, I've reviewed WP:ELNO now and with that useful background I'd again like to invite you to explain your removal of the two websites I mentioned above. Thanks in advance. -Thibbs (talk) 03:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Forum and user-generated multimedia downloads, and no, the claim was not cited, properly or otherwise: if I wrote "Frogs[1] and cats are green", the claim about cats would be uncited whether or not the claim about frogs was properly cited. Since the burden is on the person adding the material to make sure it's properly cited, you probably should spend whatever amount of time that you need to verify it; after all, there's no deadline. You are of course forgiven for your errors/misconceptions, and I wish you all the best with your future edits. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:00, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really not understanding your argument that the cited claim wasn't really a source or that it wasn't really cited. The claim had a reference attached to it and although the attached reference didn't match the claim, it was still presented as the source. In other words it was a source that had been cited as the origin of the claim. That's why I've suggested above that {{failed verification}} would be appropriate to use here. Citing a source is the same as pointing to it as the source/origin of the claim. Just because the claim misinterprets the source or because the claim isn't in fact bolstered by the source doesn't mean that it wasn't pointed to as the source. There's no question that the Chris Plante article in question was held up as the alleged source/origin of the claim. In attempting to verify this, as you've implied you did during the 60 seconds between cullings, you discovered that the citation could not be verified. You didn't discover that the citation wasn't a citation because it clearly was one. What else could it have been? Vandalism? Random gibberish? A test edit? No, it was a source that had been cited as the origin of the claim. It was just wrongfully cited.
As for the external links, I also must disagree with your analysis of the Charles Jacobi website. The chexquest.org link is more of a borderline case, but the chucktropolis.com link definitely seems appropriate to me. I would prefer to discuss these issues on the Chex Quest talk page if you wouldn't mind because they are really more related to the content of that article than they are related to your involvement with them and it would allow for more neutral input from third parties. What do you think? Would you mind starting a talk page discussion to explain (in more than two-word phrases) why you feel that those two ELs conflict with your understanding of WP:ELNO? -Thibbs (talk) 05:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've already explained the issue of citation several times without aiding in your understanding, so perhaps it's best to agree to disagree on that point. In any event, the material was not supported by an RS, so it'll stay gone. You are certainly free to start a talk page discussion if you wish to gain the consensus required by WP:ELBURDEN to re-add the links. Perhaps once you explain why you feel they are appropriate I will be able to give you a more tailored response, as occurred for the citation issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, were you arguing that because some of the material was uncited, it was inappropriate for me to bring up the cited portions? I can see from your "Frogs[1] and cats are green" example that you are trying to draw a distinction between claims-with-cites like the first part of the material you deleted and claims-without-cites like the second part. If that was what you were trying to explain to me then rest assured I understood that from the start. If you've been trying to argue that the improperly cited portion wasn't actually cited, though, then yes I will have to agree to disagree with you.
I'm not sure how my explanations of why the external links should be kept will help you come up with better explanations for why you deleted them in the first place, but I can't really force you to reveal an explanation so I suppose I have no choice. I hope you'll join me at the talk page. -Thibbs (talk) 07:08, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For your amusement: On closer examination I think I understand why the initial citation failed WP:V. The original claim was this: "Chex Quest fans are also often fans of Chex cereal and, as with the original games,[16] several fan creations spoof the blatant commercial aspects..." I suspect that the citation was actually supposed to be placed after "Chex Quest fans are also often fans of Chex cereal[*]", and the citation was instead supposed to be to the other Chris Plante article under "Sources" entitled "Chex Quest 3 Released; Cereal fans set down spoons to rejoice". It's such a trivial claim, though, that its inclusion or exclusion doesn't matter much either way. -Thibbs (talk) 07:53, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly: had there been a different citation in a different place, the material might have been cited. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:00, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I've lost the stomach for your word games. We've agreed to disagree on whether "improper citation" is a botched form of citation and whether any of the deleted material was even improperly cited so let's just leave it there. The material is gone and I'm not contesting it so for what it's worth I'd say that you have "won". Good for you. -Thibbs (talk) 16:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not a word game any more than it was an "amusement", but by all means, be done. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Today's article for improvement and the main page[edit]

The development for TAFI has progressed significantly over the last few weeks, and we are prepared to launch the new feature on the main page for Feb 9th at 0:00 UTC. Concensus was established that the TAFI content should be placed below the DYK content. An example page has been created to show what it would look like. I would like to invite you and several other admins who have recently edited the Main Page to swing by this discussion to help us hammer out the final logistics of integrating the content onto the main page. --NickPenguin(contribs) 18:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikis[edit]

Although most of the Wikias you are removing definitely fall on the wrong side of WP:ELNO, I thought it might be worth pointing out a practical rather than policy-based argument in favor of keeping them. The existence of a third party Wiki EL on a specific topic of trivial real-world significance (e.g. a Wikia on the topic of a fictional corpus) often helps to deflect the attentions of editors who might otherwise be interested in increasing the trivia content of these articles in an unencyclopedic manner. In my experience, when these editors encounter resistance to their trivial, gameguide, or excessive plot additions they often turn to the linked niche-interest Wiki to expand its content. Ignoring these ELs as harmless would require the use of IAR and UCS which are notoriously open to interpretation so you can ignore or reject this argument as you please but I think it's worth keeping in mind that there are practical reasons why these links are favored on articles like this. None of these arguments in favor of wikis apply to contentious political or scientific topics of course because the cost of misleading the reader is simply too great, but for topics of less real-world significance that are magnets for trivia and the like, ELs to wikis like these can help Wikipedia indirectly. -Thibbs (talk) 18:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't considered that, thanks, that is useful. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The King and I is at FAC[edit]

Hi, Nikkimaria. I hope you're doing well! The King and I has been nominated for FAC. Perhaps you could do an image check? It would be great if you could take a look at the article and give comments at the FAC. Thanks for any time you could spare! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sixth Extinction FAC[edit]

Hi Nikki, could I trouble you for one of your patented image/source reviews here (and of course anything else you'd want to add)? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tks for that, Nikki -- do I take it you're satisfied with the responses/changes? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, should be all fine now. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Sandeep Das[edit]

Nikkimaria, could you please check this DYK nomination to see whether your close paraphrasing concerns have been addressed by the subsequent edits? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And again... (looks like more was moved around than rephrased, but you'll know better than I). BlueMoonset (talk) 06:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nikkimaria/Archive_18&oldid=1149832192"